Omg! Really. This topic has been discussed since January and still not dealt with(responded to) by staff. ?!? Wow
we should keep it in sight and keep this topic alive until someone from SG responds to it.
Well, from what I’ve seen, shufflers actually don’t care about beating higher teams.
It’s all about the loot.
Some have even developed a sophisticated system to go back and forth between alliances to keep high star titans and open war chests.
Obviously these are people with no ethic sense at all.
That’s exactly the problem, shufflers create a new alliance to be paired with weaker alliances.
Indeed we should. See this regularly in wars nowadays. In addition to registering complaints here, our Alliance also take the time to update our Alliance message. With our considered views on the degeneracy level of soul required to engage in the behavior under consideration. It falls on deaf ears im sure. But on a more positive note it does seem to be somewhat therapeutic.
I’ve only read the summary, so I’m not sure whether it was already proposed: currently matchmaking takes into account how successful an „alliance“ has been over the last 20 wars. I suggest you should instead take into account how successful the players have been over the last 20 wars.
After that a new alliance with 30 players shouldn‘t be favoured over an alliance with the same 30 players who already played twenty wars together.
There is a thread with a very good proposal, you can go and vote there:
Some time ago they discovered how to take advantage of the bad coding of war pairings and it is already insufferable it is necessary for the creators to take action on the matter
many high-level players are creating new alliances to be favored in the matchmaking thanks to this they manage to quickly fill 3 war chests and win them easily after this they proceed to abandon that created alliance and make another. while the rest of the players have to suffer such abuses
I already talked in another post and I keep on wondering how this can be solved with an alliances tournament and put an end to the discussion I leave the link below
Now, if that solution is not feasible, why not simply take the 3/4 and 5-star heroes that each member of the war has, get a score from this and take that into account when matching the war?
Why is the alliance war score taken into account if it does not say anything and it is the clearest point which is being manipulated
On it’s way to being solved, at least partially.
really good news thank you very much for the reply
We finally hit our 20th war and got a top 5 match! I’m glad to see that there is a promising fix in the works even though it is too late for us now lol
I have a classic example of it. We lost a war. All of them where players 4400+ tp and highest 4733tp.
I don’t know if someone else has already mentioned this, but I thought of a great solution earlier today. The devs could make it so your alliance can’t go to the next war (or two) after creating a new alliance. Simple fix.
Think it’s been proposed before.
But it looks like you’ve missed the devs actual response to how they’re going to try and resolve the issue:
A newly created alliance of top players gonna need more than two months until they get properly matched. Proposal is not good. You can’t expect a whole alliance of war orientated members to wait that much.
Only “solution” in such fights is matchmaking do not take under any consideration past war history. Instead just 30 strongest heroes and troops. That way it wouldn’t matter if the alliance is 2 years old or new. That means SG has to find a way to somehow exclude war history from matchmaking process but still count it in the total war score (for rankings).
My solution is not to eventually get them properly matched, but to dissuade them from forming new alliances all the time to get the quick loot. Instead of immediately being able to get more loot, they would have to sit out a couple wars, and not get the loot. It could amount to them missing out on a lot of loot if they do this all the time.
I do like the idea though of having match making based off of the top 30 heroes only.
Missing a couple of wars won’t fix the issue.
As far as i understand, here and in a couple more similar topics, the main issue is unfair matching in Wars. I don’t think people are complaining that new alliances have better chance for good loot.
I personally know a few newly created alliances of good and strong players. Some of them have been created around 2 months ago and still can’t get properly matched, winning every war with 2k-3k points difference. It’s not that they want to face those unfairly matched opponents. It’s just SG matching system sucks in terms of newly created alliances.
War history plays a huge role in matchmaking. You can get a match where newly created alliance of 30 top players, who have been in top 5 alliances, match agains 2 years old alliance with same war score (because of their war history). The result will be terrible to watch - probably up to 4k-5k difference in favour of the newly created future top alliance
This doesn’t fix anything, but it sure annoys “legitimate” new alliances. There are many reasons why a new Alliance might be created that has nothing to do with manipulating the matchmaking. Why should they suffer?
It’s ironic that this focus on the rosters is exactly what got SGG into this mess. Previous to this:
what you’re proposing is actually how it worked. War history tracking was added because not having it was terrible.
The Raid ladder is 100% based on outcome, not roster, and works considerably better. It’s called an Elo ladder, and Gryphonknight has been pushing for its use in war for years. I agree, matchmaking based on rosters is complex and has many loopholes, while matchmaking based on performance is fairly simple and less open to manipulation.
Technically true, but these things are related. By manipulating the matchmaking, the “new” Alliance gets a 100% win rate, and opens a new War Chest every 5 wars. The point for them is that the loot comes faster; and you’re right, nobody is complaining about that directly. It’s just really hard on the Alliances they are matched against, who are forced to lose constantly, and that’s where the complaints come in.
It could fix it IF was enough of a deterrent. If the alliance does this all the time, they are going to be doing it for the quick loot. If they do the math and realize they will be missing out on quite a bit of loot due the the amount of times they do this it might work
Plus not allowing a team to participate in a couple wars isn’t a big deal, so there is no reason to say “ Why should they suffer”. That is in no way suffering. Yes they missed out on the chance to get the loot from two wars, but if that is all, it isn’t very much.
I’m not sure you’re following how the exploit is generally used. Your plan is no deterrent at all. 0. Nada. These alliances are generally set up a War or two ahead of time by a sleeper alt account that is opted out. Having to set them up a little earlier isn’t going to slow them down at all.
Brand new players might not see it as a huge disadvantage, but experienced players will. Basically it time delays the recruiting effort, and makes finding a new alliance annoying because you gotta look out for those ones that can’t participate in War.
So, 0 advantage, some disadvantages. Not a good equation.
Thanks for the clarification. I have been playing for about three years now, and have only been with three alliances. I had no idea that is what those “new” alliances were operating.
Now that I think about it, if they didn’t have a sleeper creating the alliance in advance like that, my solution would cause them to come up with idea anyway.